Efficacy, Effectiveness, Efficiency: From Judicial to Managerial Rationality

  • Ulrich KarpenEmail author
Part of the Legisprudence Library book series (LEGIS, volume 3)


Practical legislation and legisprudence strive for reducing the quantity and improving the quality of law. Qualified legislation is legitimized to safeguard public order and to shape the common good. Legitimacy of law flows from four main sources: rationality as a prerequisite of every state action, juridical rationality as conformity with the constitution, economic rationality and review and control of the law. This chapter focusses on economic or managerial rationality: efficacy, effective and efficient legislation. These goals and means of productive state action is, however, embedded in the democratic rule of law state and must obey the directives and limits of the constitution. Finally, it is legal, economic and political rationality which concretizes the common weal. The study comes to the conclusion that constitutional norms, namely their interpretation, as a value order, are important red ropes for targets and instruments of legislation. They are, however, not strictly binding on the legislator in the sense that constitutional judiciary may declare laws as void, if they fail to meet the guidance of rationality, legality, efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency. This finding grants exceptions in case of grossly missing democratic rule-of-law- and human rights-principles and arbitrary regulation. Parliament may and should improve self-control of laws according to these principles. The final “watchdog” is the Constitutional Court. The author observes a juridification of legislation, a sort of a “hybridization” of the representative democratic and juridical rule-of-law-elements of the Constitution. A re-balancing of the first and third power in the constitutional and political arena is needed.


Quality of Law Rationality Effectiveness Efficiency Regulatory Impact Assessment Judicial Review 


  1. Arnim, Hans Herbert von. 1984. Staatslehre der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. München: Vahlen.Google Scholar
  2. Arnim, Hans Herbert von. 1988. Wirtschaftlichkeit als Rechtsprinzip. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  3. de Benedetto, Maria. 2016. Maintenance of rules. In Legislation and legisprudence in Europe – A comprehensive guide for scholars and legislative practitioners, eds. U. Karpen and H. Xanthaki. Oxford: Hart (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  4. Burghart, Axel. 1996. Die Pflicht zum guten Gesetz. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  5. Century for Lawmaking for a New Nation. 1787/1991. U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774–1875, 3 vols. New Haven: Yale.Google Scholar
  6. Eidenmüller, Horst. 1995. Effizienz als Rechtsprinzip. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  7. Flückiger, Alexandre. 2009. Effectiveness: A new constitutional principle. Legislação, Cadernos de Ciência de Legislação 50: 183–198.Google Scholar
  8. Gerhard, Volker. 2014. Der Sinn des Sinns – Versuch über das Göttliche. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  9. Hartmann, Bernd J. 2013. Öffentliches Haftungsrecht. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  10. Hill, Hermann. 1982. Einführung in die Gesetzgebungslehre. Heidelberg: C. F. Müller.Google Scholar
  11. Holmes, Oliver W. 1881. The common law. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  12. Hopt, Klaus. 1972. Finale Regelungen. Experiment und Datenverarbeitung in Recht und Gesellschaft. Juristenzeitung (JZ) 27: 65–75.Google Scholar
  13. Kant, Immanuel. 1785 (1993). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals, 3rd ed. Trans. J.W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  14. Karpen, Ulrich. 1986. Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Gesetzgebungslehre in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung (ZG) 1: 5–32.Google Scholar
  15. Karpen, Ulrich. 1989. Gesetzgebungs-, Verwaltungs- und Rechtsprechungslehre – Beiträge zur Entwicklung einer Regelungstheorie. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  16. Karpen, Ulrich. 2006. Wachhund. In Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 11 July 2006, No. 158: 7.Google Scholar
  17. Karpen, Ulrich. 2010. Good governance. European Journal of Law Reform 12: 16–31.Google Scholar
  18. Karpen, Ulrich. 2012. Comparative law: Perspectives of legislation. Legisprudence 6(2): 149–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karpen, Ulrich. 2016. Current Situation and prospects of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) in Germany, namely in parliament. Seoul: Korea Legislation Research Institute.Google Scholar
  20. Karpen, Ulrich, and Helen Xanthaki (eds.). 2016. Legislation and legisprudence in Europe – A comprehensive guide for scholars and legislative practitioners. Oxford: Hart (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  21. Kloepfer, Michael. 2014. Finanzverfassungsrecht. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  22. Kommers, Donald, and Russel Miller. 2012. The constitutional jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, 3rd ed. Durham: Duke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kriele, Martin. 1976. Theorie der Rechtsgewinnung, 2nd ed. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  24. Landfried, Christine. 1988. Constitutional review and legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany. In Constitutional review and legislation – An international comparison, ed. Christine Landfried, 147–176. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  25. Leisner, Walter. 1971. Effizienz als Rechtsprinzip. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  26. Lücke, Jörg. 1987. Begründungszwang und Verfassung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  27. Luhmann, Niklas. 1969. Legitimation durch Verfahren. Neuwied: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
  28. Mader, Luzius. 2001. Evaluating the effects: A contribution to the quality of legislation. Statute Law Review 22(2): 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Merten, Detlef. 2015. “Gute” Gesetzgebung als Verfahrenspflicht oder Verfahrenslast? Die Öffentliche Verwaltung (DÖV) 68: 349–360.Google Scholar
  30. Meßerschmidt, Klaus. 2000. Gesetzgebungsermessen. Berlin: Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz/Nomos.Google Scholar
  31. Meßerschmidt, Klaus. 2012. The race to rationality review and the score of the German Federal Constitutional Court. Legisprudence 6(3): 347–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morand, Ch Albert (ed.). 1999. Legistique Formelle et Matérielle. Formal and Material Legistic. Aix-Marseille: Presses Universitaires.Google Scholar
  33. Müller, Georg, and Felix Uhlmann. 2013. Elemente einer Rechtssetzungslehre, 3rd ed. Zürich: Schulthess.Google Scholar
  34. Nowroth, Karsten. 2014. Das Republikprinzip in der Rechtsordnungengemeinschaft. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  35. Schwerdtfeger, Gunther. 1977. Optimale Methodik der Gesetzgebung als Verfassungspflicht. In Hamburg, Deutschland, Europa. Festschrift für Hans Peter Ipsen, ed. R. Stödter and W. Thieme, 173–188. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  36. Schlaich, Klaus. 1981. Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit im Gefüge der Staatsfunktionen. Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung Deutscher Staatsrechtslehrer (VVDStRL) 39: 99–143. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  37. Schuppert, Gunnar Folke. 2011. Governance und Rchtssetzung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Voermans, Wim. 2016. Legislation and regulation. In Legislation and legisprudence in Europe – A comprehensive guide for scholars and legislative practitioners, eds. U. Karpen and H. Xanthaki. Oxford: Hart (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  39. Wischmeyer, Thomas. 2015. Die Kosten der Freiheit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  40. Weber, Max. 1956. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  41. Xanthaki, Helen. 2014. Drafting legislation. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität Hamburg. Fakultät für RechtswissenschaftHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations